28 Weeks Later (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
734 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
I can't be scared because I can't get past how preposterous it was.
rowman222217 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed the first film. The characters were real, they made understandable decisions in stressful situations. It was a fresh take on a very cliché genera; zombie films.

The second film, unfortunately, has none of that. Unrealistic characters making the same irrational, unintelligent choices that people in terrible slasher films make. Maybe taken on its own it would not have been that bad, but it has a much stronger film to live up to so it amplifies all of the weaknesses.

I am sorry if I am giving some things away so stop reading now if you have not seen the film and want to "try" and be surprised. I say try because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, unpredictable about this film.

The thing I found most absurd was that after only four months of failing to find an infected person, they already want to try to repopulate the island. Preposterous!!!! The greatest plague in the history of world and they are going back all cavalier? No. It would take years, maybe even decades before any re-population attempt would be made, and even then it would be a military only operation composed of troops and scientists. There would have to be global wide panels of experts and diplomats involved as the entire world would stand to be infected if something went wrong. Anthrax can live in moist soil for years so why not the rage virus? Maybe if the title was 28 months later, or more realistic, 28 years later.

And then again, who would want to come back? There would have to be fantastic incentives to get people to move back. Such as no taxes for life, free property, hereditary titles, etc. But the filmmakers make no effort to explain why the people who moved back were motivated to do so.

Then there is Robert Carlisle's character who is ultimately the person responsible for the re-emergence of the virus. He accomplished this because he has a magnetic pass key that gives him unfettered access to the entire complex, even top secret areas. He walks into a quarantine room of an individual, who turns out to be his wife, that is a carrier of the rage virus but is asymptomatic. He supposedly is some sort of civilian contractor or maintenance worker in the facility, but that wouldn't give him unrestricted access, he isn't even military. Come on!!! Then when the virus finally breaks back out (Too far into the movie to allow for much action in a 90 minute flick) the emergency protocols are so amateurish to be laughable. It is obvious right away that they have never given any or the re-patriots emergency drills because as they are being shuffled into quarantine chambers, they are all confused as to what is happening. You have to go through emergency drills your first day on a cruise ship and they are telling us that after repopulating Brittan after the most deadly plague of mankind, they are not even going to do some drills???? So when this inevitably fails (the zombies break into the quarantine zones, of course) in the ensuing panic, the soldiers cannot tell who is infected and who isn't. After not too much time, the general gives the order to shoot everyone just to be sure. Again, I was sitting in my seat fuming, all they would have had to broadcast on the PA was "Put up your right hand if you are not infected." Presumably zombies don't follow directions. But no, the soldiers start shooting everyone. I wonder if a Nuremburg defense would work in this instance? And of all the other soldiers shooting civilians, only one has moral qualms. Pathetic.

From here, the movie devolves into the typical horror film. The surviving characters of the initial carnage band together and are slowly picked off by circumstance and the results of terrible decision making (Should I go into the Tube where it is dark and has no lights, or should I stay above ground where I can see where I am going?) Oh, and while in the tube, they navigate with a lone night vision scope on an assault rifle that the character doesn't point at the way ahead, but instead at the surviving characters heads, did she forget that the scope is attached to a gun? Who points a gun at peoples heads they are not intending to shoot. BTW this is the same character who earlier in the film corrected the word usage of a person and then made the same mistake herself. (What kind of writer didn't pick that up???) Oh, and Robert Carlisle just happens to appear in nearly every scene even though he is only supposed to be a zombie. It got really irritating to keep seeing him pop up all the time. Was someone directing his location????? Again, no explanation of why this particular zombie was so adept at finding the few survivors.
293 out of 429 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is a dreadful film, and the reasons why are...
capcanuk14 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
28 Weeks Later has to be the most disappointing sequel I've ever seen. This review will contain spoilers, however, it's nothing that the filmmakers themselves haven't spoiled to start with. Let's start with the most fundamental element of film-making: camera work. 28 Weeks Later is one of those pretentious films with the epileptic, hand-held camera that seems so popular with filmmakers who have nothing to actually say or show in their films. There are precious few scenes where the camera isn't both hand-held and in constant frenetic motion. It brings nothing to the film, creates no tension, and brings nothing new to the art of film-making. There are lengthy scenes that compound the camera work problem by also being filmed in simulated night vision. For those of you with a propensity to headaches or vision problems, this alone makes 28 Weeks Later a film to avoid.

On to the story. This is, sadly, one of those films where stupid people do stupid things as the only means the filmmakers could think of to advance a pointless story. **spoilers start** These two kids have just arrived in the "secure zone" and yet are able to sneak out, past heavily armed guards, pas various security measures, and run off into an area they have been repeatedly told is not safe. Armed guards surround the city. Soldiers are everywhere. Everyone has a machine-gun, a pistol, night vision goggles… and yet, the discovery of an infected person, brought into the "secure zone", and absolutely NO precautions are taken? There are no extra guards; there are no extra security measures. To make matters even more "logical", it seems that all the soldiers in the area where this infected person is being kept are all either idiots, unarmed, or conscientious objectors. There is not one useful weapon to be found when it would be most useful. A soldier with a helicopter wants to rescue his buddy, yet the only thing he can think to do is have them crawl throughout the city to a distant spot to pick them up? Are there absolutely NO areas closer? This is just a completely useless gimmick to have the heroes of the story trek across town. I could go on listing plot holes large enough to float the entire U.K through, but I trust my warning will be enough to ward off those who are on the fence about seeing this film or not. Somehow, the kids' father has survived all the way through these events, despite all logic. Like the lone zombie in Day of the Dead who has learned to use a gun and appears to have regained some of his sentience, here we have an infected who defies all logic, including the internal logic of 28 Days Later, to follow his children and pop up at convenient moments for cheap scares and bad melodramatic moments. The filmmakers have created situations that defy logic and normalcy to advance a completely pointless story. Characters perform actions that defy logic. Events happen that defy logic. There is blood everywhere, yet no one seems worried about infection. And I can assure you, if blood is what you feel like seeing, this movie's carnage is on the heavy side. I'm not squeamish, and I actually enjoy a good gory film every once in a while. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is not the gore. It's the pointlessness of it all.

I've seen some really bad films in my day. I've actually enjoyed some of those bad films. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is that it WANTS to be a great film. It WANTS to be a big budget gore-fest. With completely unsympathetic characters, it fails to create any bond with the audience. Even if the epileptic camera work gave us an instant of respite to actually relate to those characters. We are kept at a distance by terrible plot devices, terrible character development, and completely silly events.
547 out of 842 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A unique take on zombie films ruined for a cliché story and plot holes.
Senor_Hugo13 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film sucks. The director used only one shooting style. Shaky-cam.

If the director somehow ends up reading this review. Shaky cam shooting does not equal good, unique, or even an innovative shooting style. It's used by people who need to cover up their lack of a story with a confusing and erratic camera movements.

Seriously, even the still camera shots and the pans looked as if the camera man was a retard who suffered from chronic epileptic seizures.

Everything was shaky cam. The friggin credits were shaky cam for Christ's sake.

Shaky cam should ONLY be used for documentaries(Grizzly Man), or reality TV shows, like COPS.

Now, camera work aside, lets actually get into the story.

With 28 Days Later we were presented with a unique take on zombie films. With 28 Weeks Later, we were presented with complete destruction of that unique take. They took a good story and turned it into your stereotypical zombie film.

Not to mention, there were plot holes galore. Seriously, the plot holes were such in number, that the plot holes had plot holes.

The story was so damned terrible. Small boy(who I swear on my life I thought was a girl from all the previews, and even looks like Hermoine(Harry Potter) if she was a dude, anyway, small boy shows up in England, and he has two different colored eyes, which he inherited from his mom, and is very "unique." Foreshadowing! Anyway, turns out the mom, who turns out to be infected as seen in the first 5 minutes of this god awful film, isn't actually infected. She had the virus but has a natural immunity. So shes a carrier for the virus, as her saliva can still pass it on.

So as anyone with 1/10th of a brain can figure out the entire friggin' plot of the film from here on out. Boy has mom's genes, boy has natural immunity, boy = possible cure for the Rage virus.

The dad goes and visits the mother who's in the medical facility, they make out, and thus he becomes a zombie and kills the mom.

He not only becomes a zombie, but he's also a magical super zombie. Not only can he magically bypass a locked door, but he also shows up wherever the kid goes. He is like Jason, no matter how far you run away, drive away, fly away. He'll end up right where you are, in front of you none the less.

Like I said, plot holes galore. There were so many plot holes, combined with the shaky cam, I had no idea what was going on during the film 90% of the time. Zombies magically appear on rooftops where snipers are and end up killing the zombies, even though they're on buildings with like 30 stories.

A population of 15,000 people can fit into a tiny room, but then fill a field with zombies.

The zombies are apparently so bad ass they can escape a firebombed district of London, breaking out of the zone, after the place was firebombed to hell and back.

Not to mention, like I said before, the dad combined with shaky came = super zombie. He is fire proof, biological weapon proof, he can even easily kill soldiers who are highly trained in the blink of an eye, like he was Jack Carver from Farcry.

This movie really is terrible. If anything, it would have been worth renting, and not paying $8 to see in theaters.
218 out of 333 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stupid upon Stupid... the stupidity exhibited was incredible
katalinajime14 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm open to believe the U.S. Army is stupid- but THAT stupid? How do 2 kids get out of the "safe" zone and manage to steal a moped, ride through London, hang out at their house, and meet their mother before the Army can catch up with them? The purpose of putting the safe zone on an island in London was for containment (I assume) and yet, the survivors AND the zombies are able to walk across a bridge to get off the island AFTER it's been fire bombed? I am able to guess the mother's genetic eye-color trait is linked to the genetic anomaly that makes her and her kid immune- how does the idiot doctor not figure it out? Is the medical director really so stupid as to not guess these kids could be current hosts- is she really so stupid as to whisk the two kids away without checking their blood- and wouldn't doing a full work up on both kids be required when they were first caught? Is she so stupid as to risk her life to get these two kids out of Britain who can be carriers, like their mother was a carrier? And really... the father's reaction when he finds out his wife is alive... this is a man who should have severe PTSD (the entire survival population should have PTSD)... and he saw his entire nation succumb to this virus and yet he is ready to believe that his wife comes out of an attack unscathed? And then he sneaks through security to see her???!! Really??! And again back to the stupid U.S. Army-- you'd think security in that place would have been better...I get that he had "all access" pass, I just think the Army would have guards around too.

Come on... the movie was so stupid upon stupid. Sorry to all the fans, I really liked the first one.
116 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well-done: Gripping and scary
Andy444419 May 2007
Having seen 28 Days Later I thought I was prepared for this, but I was not. Somewhere near the beginning of the film is a scene that goes from zero to psycho in about 2 seconds flat. The beginning of 2004's Dawn of the Dead also had a wildly chaotic kick-off scene, but unlike that film, which was a great film to laugh through while chomping your popcorn, this film is no laughing matter.

When there's no violence, there's fear and tension.

When there is on-screen violence, there is absolute shock and horror. Scene after scene shows ordinary people placed in impossible situations from which they cannot escape. This time, of course, there now two implacable predators out there hunting them down: the rage virus from the first film, and the military which is attempting to maintain control of any outbreak, but is willing to visit unspeakable horrors upon innocent people if they cannot keep that control. The horror and scale of the virus is so severe, that the plans the military implements are completely plausible.

The actions scenes are masterfully done, effectively placing the viewer in the points of view of both the victims and the crazed, but still scarily human, zombies. The portrayal of the violence pulls no punches; people of all age groups and walks of life are destroyed without remorse. No attempt is made to soft-pedal it. The fragility of human life on Earth and its vulnerability to just the right nasty virus are thoughts that stay with you after you've left the theater, and add a nice "after taste" of fear. The soundtrack, as with the first film, is amazing in conveying the tension and dread and sadness of the scenes. The story is fairly tight, as well. My only complaints might be with the acting of some of the soldiers, which just didn't feel authentic to me for some reason.

Overall I'd say this is one of the best zombie films I've ever seen, in fact, one of the most effective thrillers I've seen, as well.
360 out of 576 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Exciting and apocalyptic follow-up with noisy action, and spectacular images
ma-cortes25 December 2008
The deadly virus has decimated the city of London, exception a little zone where live people no-infected. The US army controls the city and is repopulating with good people. A family formed by a father named Don(Robert Carlyle) and sons, Tammy(Imagen Poots)and Andy(Mckintosh)are reunited .But one of them spreads the epidemic, the rage virus outbreaks and re-ignites the infection infiltrating in the secured zone , causing wreak havoc and death .Those exposed cruel biting suffer a complete transformation turning into meat-eating sickos. The sons escape and are helped by a soldier(Jeremy Renner) and a military doctor(Rose Byrne).The military take on zombies and the survivors are surrounded , facing the world destruction by deadly epidemic.

This moving film contains chills, thrills, horror and lots of blood and gore.The flesh-eating mutants appearance deliver the goods plenty of screams, shocks and tension.The horror moments are compactly made and fast moving .The make-up assistant create a truly frightening zombie cannibals. Terrifying and astonishing frames about apocalyptic events with deserted streets, and creepy mood at London without people totally uninhabited , similarly to classics movies, such as ¨Quatermas and pit, Omega man and Lifeforce¨. I think this movie is better than previous original, because packs more action and more breathtaking images. Casting is frankly well, along with distinguished players, Robert Carlyle, Catherine McCormack, Rose Byrne, Harold Perrineau, appear young promises,as Imagen Poots and Mckintosh.Nice cinematography , using steadycam and photographed in videotape by Enrique Chediak. Atmospheric and haunting musical score by John Murphy ,composed in the same style from '28 days later'by Danny Boyle(also producer along with Alex Garland) . The flick is surprisingly realized with startling visual style by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo(Intacto). Rating : Better than average, this horror story will leave you stunned.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A movie about zombies, made for zombies
satanenterprises27 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Horror movies are about scaring people. There are basically two ways to do this physically and psychologically.

Physically is extremely easy, you just lower music, make the character look around a dark corner, through a hole, behind a door and... Bang! Out comes the antagonist. Then the antagonist can start cutting strips off the character, digesting organs and squirting bodily fluids everywhere. Sure when done well it's scary, but my little brother could do this with a big enough budget.

Now the other side of a horror is the psychological scare. This is by far more superior and much harder to do. This is when you watch a horror and get swept into the movie. You start to think things like "I would of done that", "That could actually happen" or "They don't deserve to die". The movie makes you think about the problems the people faced, you can relate to them and may even feel sorry for the clever characters who die.

This movie is a classic example of a movie that has all the first and none of the second. Gaping plot holes aside basically every character can only be described as mentally retarded (Refer to all the other 1 star reviews for evidence). I'm sick of watching stupid people being used as plot devices in horror movies, it just shows that the creators of the movie aren't very clever.

This is to horror what slapstick is to comedy. Not very intelligent, good for a few thrills that are equivalent to getting a member of my house to jump out at me a couple of times during the day. Isn't it time that horror moved on, we've been at this level for the last 30 years with far too few exceptions. If mouth breathers would stop rating these films so well with comments like "It's got some good scares" and "It's just a horror movie" then we might see some changes.

I'm not scared Juan, I'm just really bored!
73 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Illogical plot and flat characters plague this disappointing sequel
jillyannesmith13 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The movie begins in the dead center of the original outbreak of the epidemic in England. We are introduced to a handful of people hiding out from the rage-infected including Robert Carlyle's character and his wife. After a short time, the house is attacked and most of the group killed by the zombie-like masses. The husband and wife are separated and he flees to water, barely escaping with his life.

Here is my first of many complaints of this film. The separation of the couple is used as a cheap emotional ploy to discredit Carlyle. Standing across the room from his wife, whom he had desperately been pleading that she flee with him, he is outnumbered by rage-infected and weaponless. He makes the only choice he possibly can as a realistic character and takes the way out which is available to him. Only the invincible action-hero archetype could be expected any other course of action.

The opening scene itself is the high-point of the film. From here we jump to what the title promises as months later. NATO, led by, guess who.. the US, moves in to begin re-population of the country. Unfortunately the country is still littered with bodies of victims and is, in general, exceptionally unsafe. Still out military decides to set up a "safe zone" (glaringly pointing to our Iraq "green zone" folly), right outside of the city with ridiculously lousy security. Carlyle's 2 children, who had been in Spain during the outbreak, return home and are reunited with their father. In a hopelessly coincidental turn of events, Carlyle just happens to have complete access to everything about the compound.

Their first day back in Mother England, these 2 young characters easily escape the compound even though they are spotted by the military, and return home to get "some stuff". Even viewing the desolation first hand and discovering a decomposed corpse isn't enough to open these morons' eyes to the horror of events and stop them from trotting home for some clothes and misc. riff-raff.

Upon returning home, the children discover that their mother some how (which is never revealed) survived the attack and has been living in the house for the past few months. The military finally arrive and take the children and their mother back to the "green zone".

The mother, who is a carrier of the disease but shows no symptoms due to a genetic abnormality, is a precious commodity as she may contain the secrets to a cure. So since she is so very special, the military straps her to a table and leaves her by herself and unguarded in an area her husband can conveniently access. How we are supposed to believe the military would give SUCH complete access to a civilian is beyond me. The children, who are in trouble for sneaking out, are given a guard. I guess they didn't have another to spare for the woman that might save humanity.

Predictably, the mother infects Carlyle who flies into the usual "rage", kills her, and escapes into the compound starting the infection all over again.

The compound is insanely unprepared for this event and attempts to "lock down" civilians in a room with a back door...

Panic and mayhem ensue as the infection begins to spread and the military begins its indiscriminate slaughter of the citizens. Another thumb of the nose to military.

From here the film just spirals into your basic "zombie chase" movie losing red-shirts left and right. We are introduced to, then lose, a few characters, giving us no richness of character along the way. Carlyle occasionally pops up in the vain of a long-haired Japanese ghost. There is no logical reason for his appearances, but at this point, the movie is no longer at home to Mr. Logic.

Ultimately, we are given the beyond predictable "twist" setting up the inevitable 28 Months Later. Between the illogical plot and idiotic characters, the director burns vast amounts of film on sweeping shots of the abandoned countryside and close-up views of the characters faces as they "react".. or fail to react, to the horror around them.

Having hailed 28 Days Later as possibly my favorite modern horror film, I was disappointed.
120 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Note to America: Don't make sequels to foreign films
pjyielder19 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
28 Days Later was one of the smartest "horror" films I had ever seen when it came out, but its sequel pales in comparison. Someone has paralleled the comparison between Alien and Aliens, but I think it's even worse than that. This film will definitely find its audience, much like Aliens did. But whereas Alien and 28 Days Later are scary yet smart, Aliens and 28 Weeks Later are given the Hollywood face-lift with the help of lots of machine guns and overacting. Oh, and a worthless plot.

To be fair, the opening sequence of the film truly had me squirming in my seat and I feared the worst for my sleep that night. One of the most terrifying aspects of the original film was the idea of escaping to the countryside and boarding up for safety, only to eventually be helplessly attacked by the roaming infected. Therefore, anyone who has seen the original will quickly deduce what is about to happen as soon as the young boy knocks on the door seeking shelter. Things are looking good by the end of the first sequence; a reasonable plot conflict has been developed and the director has scared the viewer just enough to remind them that yes, this is a horror film. After this, it all goes downhill.

The American presence in the film is not my beef with it, despite my subject line. At first it seems anti-U.S. in the way it portrays military occupation, but Sgt. Doyle's character, stereotypical though his name may be, serves as a counter to this. The soldiers are doing the best they can, and their decision to go to "code red" and kill everyone rather than just the infected is not out of the question. If anything, the "safe zone" created by the U.S. presence is entirely implausible, much like the fact that Robert Carlyle's character has full access to all of it as a civilian employee. Given the nature of the virus, one would think that maximum (and I mean MAXIMUM) security would be priority number one. And this is exactly where the film fails: completely implausible events are used to push a weak plot forward. After Carlyle's character has been infected by the wife he thought he left for dead, you can officially start laughing instead of wincing. I wish I had been in the laugh-friendly comfort of home rather than a theater, because my friends and I would have had a field day with the latter half of this movie. At one point, Carlyle's zombie is seen looking at a picture of his family while growling and gnashing his teeth like the rest of his zombie brethren. Are we to believe that certain zombies whom once had families are able to put aside their unquenchable blood lust for some sentimental memories via pictures of home? I had to fight the urge to do my best Don LaFontaine impression during that scene. Simply terrible, trite film-making. Also, since it was a U.S.-produced horror film, you can expect characters to do really stupid things while your brain begs for mercy. Once a lull in action comes along, someone investigates a rapidly banging door or initiates any one of a number of cheap scare clichés to keep the sheep filling their gullets with popcorn. Don's (Carlyle) son is the token innocent but stupid kid of the film who initiates most of said clichés, while his daughter is the token looker without a brain who overacts every line she is fed. The only truly rewarding scene for me was the helicopter massacre, and that is a disgrace considering how intelligent the first film was.

Technically, the film looks and feels extremely rushed, especially in the cinematography. Attack sequences (and otherwise) are spliced with mindless hand-held camera-shaking, adding a dose of nausea to an already visually jarring film. I'm not against hand-held camera work, but I think a more direct and effective film might have been produced had it not looked like the director let his kids play around with the camera. The film looks acceptable when it's not dizzying, but it's nothing worth noting. The soundtrack is almost exactly the same as the first, minus the Eno track.

Basically, if you're looking for a mindless gore-fest, this is your ticket. If you're a fan of how scary the original film was on a much deeper, darker, and smarter level, this is not your ticket. I was extremely disappointed with this one.
169 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Very Poor
dantemple-112 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER _ _SPOILER _ _ SPOILER I am surprised to see so many positive reviews for 28 weeks later, as in my opinion it bares little comparison to its excellent predecessor.

It is not completely without merit, the film does succeed is in recreating the style and feel of the first film. The best elements of the cinematography, camera work and score from 28 Days are again present here.

Unfortunately what are lacking are a cohesive plot, plausible characterisation and quality acting.

Most annoying of all is Robert Carlisle's zombie, he really should have had the words 'plot device' tattooed on his forehead.

Until half way through the second film we had been led to believe that all those infected with the virus become mindless psychos only intent on murdering the nearest person to them.

However luckily for us and the film, Carlisle's zombie has the dubious ability to teleport himself directly into the any scene as and where the plot dictates. This is the kind of focus group thinking that ruins the majority of US made films and I am disappointed to see this here.

Bringing me on to the acting. Imogen Poots as Tammy was particularly weak. Luckily her character manages to maintain an indestructible layer of eye liner during the film, thank god, I really wouldn't have been able to believe her performance otherwise.

I imagine this film will be well received in the US as its contrived plot and tenuous happenstance will be forgiven in the face of its increased action and gore.

Overall it's a very poor effort.
148 out of 244 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Nothing (read NOTHING) is held back...
zor_prime11 May 2007
...Not this time.

I believe 28 Weeks Later did appreciate as a sequel (with only a couple very minor depreciative concepts), and that was a surprise.

I'm admittedly a zombie film fan (especially the serious, non A-Team variety). And although the Rage virus in these two films does not produce an 'undead' zombie, the 'infected' nevertheless present a similarly formidable and threatening antagonist. If you haven't seen either film, Boyle's 'infected' are far less like the traditional lumbering Romero zombies, and closer to the Zack Snyder zombies of 2004's Dawn of the Dead. Note that if you were able to get away with seeing 28 Days Later as a date movie, you may not pull it off with 28 Weeks. There is very little breathing room, and some of it is more disturbing and far less bridled than you might be expecting, especially if you are used to the character-based 'safety' of most films.

Unlike 28 Days, a flashpan start to 28 Weeks Later sets the tone for the entire film... Which although short in running time (at just over 1:30) with quite a fast pace, still seemed very much long enough to be perfectly enjoyable, especially for any fan of the genre. Other than a brief, but informative back-story conversation near the beginning, there is almost no down time spent (wasted?) on emerging relationships or overly granular side-stories. Overall the most powerful element of the film isn't really character based, but rather the theme of a terrible pandemic that, besides a small twist, isn't much changed from the first movie.

There is one facet of the film that I did not really appreciate, but can't really detail without a spoiler warning. Let's just say that London is a fairly large playground for certain (coincidental?) events to happen (and not just once). However, there's a possibility I may be missing some concept that made these events intentional--I hope it's some twist of the virus and isn't just star power.

I'll be purchasing the DVD, but probably won't offer to watch it with any of my family and couldn't recommend it as a party movie :)

Post Script: If you had ever wondered why the rest of the world was not affected by this virus, consider the geographically isolating nature of the British Isles and the extremely short incubation period of this virus. A truly viable pandemic must have a longer incubation period and optimally be airborne or at least infect multiple disparate species. So the Rage virus, while perfectly suited in close quarters would likely not travel much farther than a pair of human legs could travel.
197 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Surprisingly Entertaining sequel
Rassill12 May 2007
When I first heard there was to be a sequel to Danny Boyle's excellent 28 Days Later and that Boyle himself would not be directing it, I was less than excited.

Then the reviews began flooding in and I was surprised, shocked even, that the majority of them were positive.

It was then after the well respected film critic Mark Kermode said it was "very good" and "better than we had any right to expect" that I began to raise my expectations.

Im happy to report that they were exceeded by a sequel that surpasses the original in terms of tension and spectacle.

Boyle remained on board with the project, albeit as a producer, but also directed some second unit footage and never allows it to veer away from the look or feel of his original.

Not that he had cause to worry as the new director,Juan Carlos Fresnadillo obviously understood Boyle's vision and expands on it without getting too carried away.

The result is a faster paced, less reflective film, containing a very intelligent political subtext and some fantastic action set pieces that (and this is the most important part) delivers a large number of quality scares.

It also dwarfs 28 days later in terms of gore, meaning true horror fans have much more in the way of visceral glee to sink their teeth into (pun intended).

Bring on 28 months later...
294 out of 505 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
28 flunks later
feastorafamine4 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Does anyone remember the old TV series "Threes Company" with John Ritter? Each episode was essentially built upon a series of misunderstandings that were eventually resolved in thirty minutes. This film has a similar structure, except we are watching the containment of a lethal virus which threatens all of mankind. In one sequence after another the actions of the actors is unbelievably foolish. First the viewer is supposed to believe that anyone would want to return to London after such horrendous events occurred. Then, how may I ask, do two children sneak out of the safe "green zone" they are protected in, and travel miles out into the forbidden and potentially infected zone? This isn't equal to sneaking in or out of the theater you visited to see this film, it's on par with sneaking out of Gitmo (or at least it should be). OK so fine, the viewer might let this slide even though the whole time they watch this portion of the film you are filled with disgust because of the stupidity of the characters actions, as well as the improbability that such an escape could occur. Moving on to only minutes later in the film, the two children discover there mother, whom they assumed was dead, looking very infected in their former home. She is brought back to the quarantined medical facility along with the children and tests positive for the virus. Now the next frustrating and improbable leap. The children's father "visits" the restrained mother inside the "secure" medical facility, swiping a security card through door after door until he is able to speak with her, without anyone in the facility knowing or being alerted to his presence. We are asked to believe that the same card he used to get in and out of his living quarters can somehow grant him access to the most sensitive areas of the medical facility. Also we are expected to believe that there is NO security guarding this woman even though she has been confirmed to carry the virus. We all know what happens next as the father becomes infected and the new outbreak spreads. Onto the next unthinkable wrinkle in the plot. As the infected and uninfected alike run screaming from the facility out into the street the armed forces are asked to target and shoot ONLY the infected. The snipers are supposed to make instantaneous distinctions between those who are healthy and those infected in a fraction of a second? The truth is that everyone running from that facility would be cut down like weeds to prevent ANYONE from leaving the building (which the higher command eventually decides to do much later than was reasonable to do so) It is only through blindly accepting the stupidity of the characters as well as the utter improbability that these characters can go and do as they please, to places they are not supposed to be, that any enjoyment can be achieved. Let's face it, the film may enjoyable on some level, for various reasons, but if you have a hard time with these obvious stretches of reality it becomes difficult to fully enjoy the rest of the film. I enjoyed the first film immensely, and I am well aware that stretches of reality are not uncommon in the horror genre, but this movie just goes too far. I have omitted a continual string of ridiculous plot turns and unthinkable character behavior that follows the breach of the virus because I feel it compassionate to do so. Those who give this film high marks in my opinion are purely giving credit for the minimum. Of course Horror films are not always judged the same as their dramatic counterparts, but viewers have developed a more sophisticated and discerning view of horror films. 28 Days later is responsible for helping lift the expectations of horror fans, this film lowers the bar. I am now going to wander off by myself in the dark, towards the summer camp lake, knowing there is a madman on the loose killing my friends in an attempt to forget this sad sequel. Wish me luck. It might take me 28 months and dismemberment to do so.
53 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The end is once again extremely ****ing nigh
arthurmauk27 August 2007
I've never been a huge fan of the zombie horror genre, but I was very impressed by Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later… Somehow it managed to create characters worth caring about as well as throwing mindless zombies at them. So when I heard that a sequel was in the making, I was excited but understandably cautious since the Disappointing Sequel Syndrome is all too common nowadays. I also disapproved of the director switch, fearing that yet another low-budget gem will be Americanised by Hollywood, made far too slick for its own good.

So to say 28 Weeks Later was a pleasant surprise would be an understatement. Fresnadillo managed to maintain everything that was good in the original and add his own flair. The rage virus, the zombies and the gore are all still here. But most importantly, what keeps the series shockingly vivid is the willingness to flaunt the naked truth: we humans are the real monsters. Under such extreme circumstances, mankind's self-preservation instincts kicks in and it is an ugly sight to see. It might be the necessary thing to do, but that still doesn't make it feel right.

The film starts off at an odd pace but soon settles into a familiar terror-stricken rush. The cast was well selected, nothing out of the ordinary but no obvious weak links either. The Americanisation was not as severe as I had previously dreaded, and I actually quite welcomed Rose Byrne and Jeremy Renner leading the plot. The shots of post-apocalyptic London may have been done already but they're still as effective as ever, and John Murphy's score is brilliant as always.

All in all, a worthy sequel to Days and very few fans will be disappointed, I hope.
108 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why did people think this was good? Here's why it sucked.
mbg14730 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My biggest problem with this movie is the total lapse of logic. Here's a list of the things I thought were absolutely stupid about this movie.

1. In the rare event of a new case of the disease, why would the military's containment plan be to round up all of the citizens and lock them in a parking garage? What sense does it make to stick hundreds of people packed in tight quarters when you're dealing with an infectious virus? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them all stay in their homes. Everyone lived in high rise apartment buildings. The buildings themselves could have been put on lock down, and everyone locked in their apartment. That way if someone gets infected, it is limited to their room, or possibly just that floor. Instead one person gets bitten in the parking garage and suddenly hundreds of people are infected in a matter or seconds.

2. How come they lock all these citizens in the parking garage, the panicked citizens can't get out, but oh wait, there's a completely unguarded fire exit near the back of garage that the military completely overlooked when coming up with this lame plan

3. Why did they kill the power to the entire city as part of the containment plan? Hey zombies are on the loose! How bout we . . . .kill the lights and make it harder for us to see them?

4. Why was the dad such a smart zombie? Aren't all the zombies just raging lunatics running around growling looking for people to eat? When the dad first gets infected he just starts raging out and can get out of the glass room he's locked himself in. But all the sudden once he's full out zombie. . .he suddenly gains the ability to use his key card to swipe himself in and out of the various restricted areas of the facility. If super smart zombie dad can do things like use his key card, why don't the zombies learn how to use guns, and open doors instead of smashing through them. . .its just stupid. All the other zombies just like grab, spray, and bite their victims, pretty straightforward stuff. But zombie dad for some reason does the eye gouge move to mom . . .and other times in the movie tackles victims and then like ponders for a moment what to do before proceeding with the killing. Another example of zombie dad not following the pattern of other zombies. He also sees the son in one scene, but rather than run straight at him and attack like all zombies do when they see a human, zombie dad decides to hide and reveal himself at a more appropriate moment. Lame!

5. The whole mom being a carrier of the disease but not turning into a zombie was stupid as well. When the zombies bust in and attack her. . .the fact that she lived without a being mauled and escapes with only a single bite mark means one thing. . .that once the zombies bit her and she contracted the disease, that they then stopped attacking her because she was one of them. So by that logic, the zombies don't attack and kill each other. But then when the dad turns into a zombie the first thing he does is kill the mom. So how the hell did that fit in? This made me question the entire zombies existence in the first place. They eat humans. . .but as soon as you're bitten you turn into a zombie within seconds, and then what they stop eating you? so ill reference the point where the two zombies somehow find their way onto the roof (entirely too quickly and easily I might add) and start attacking the sniper, so the other sniper shoots his friend to spare him the misery of being attacked by zombies. And if I remember correct the zombies just run away from his dead body. Aren't they hungry? Why wouldn't they eat his body

6. The military is just made to look so stupid in this film. Their plans are retarded and ill advised. The infection should have never gotten so out of hand as it did. They definitely had the fire power to kill everyone in the city. The place is crawling with armed soldiers. . .the dad should have been able to maybe bite a person or two before someone saw him and shot him. Also as soon as they realized the children might have a vaccine in their blood or something, they would have broadcast that info all over the radio and, not just ignored the fact and easily lose track of them. They show you an Apache helicopter they use to chase humans in the movie, but they never brought this Apache out when they actually needed to suppress the zombies. Instead the main characters get helped by some chopper pilot flying some weak, unarmed helicopter.

7. Considering how horrible the disease is, and how easily it is contracted through blood and fluids, nobody in the movie seems to care about cleanliness. If I had blood splattered on my face after shooting up zombies I would definitely wipe it off my face in case it got in my eyes or mouth. But nope, even the chief medical officer isn't worried about the highly infectious fluids on everyone.

8. Then they don't even really explain the end. What was with the scene of the inside of the helicopter at the end? And Paris are you serious. . .how the **** are they going to explain how it got off the island?

If 28 days later hadn't been so good I wouldn't have expected more than this lame effort for the sequel. It's like 3rd graders wrote the script or something.
69 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Truly Great Horror Film
Theo Robertson12 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When I heard there was going to be a sequel to 28 DAYS LATER I slammed my cards on the table and proclaimed that this was going to be one of the biggest disasters in the history of recent cinema . Despite the flaws of 28 DL - And there was many - it was at least an attempt to make an intelligent post apocalyptic adventure in the vein of John Wyndham or John Christopher even though the end result was unsatisfactory but a sequel ! That's just a case of a film becoming a franchise isn't it ? It's made simply to make a profit for some film company and after hearing that the story revolves around those damn Americans saving limey butt once again I just knew I'd be watching OBJECTIVE BURMA crossbred with a generic zombie film . Give me some credit for putting my head on the block but I'm going to have to eat my words because I saw 28 WEEKS LATER earlier tonight and I was totally engrossed for the entire running time

It is not necessary to have seen the predecessor because the story starts with husband and wife Don and Alice cooking dinner in a barricaded house . Despite some obvious exposition this is a very well written scene because we think they're alone but then we're introduced to several other characters who have survived a hellish plague that seems to have swept across the world and it's only when a child starts banging at the door that the audience find out something else - It's day outside something we hadn't realised . What happens then caused myself and the rest of the audience to jump out of our seats and we see Don do something totally practical and unheroic but be honest what would you have done in the same situation ? And something like this adds vermislitude to a plot that may seem silly

As the story jumps forward 28 weeks later NATO has started to bring back refugees to Britain and rebuild the British state and having seen some of screenwriter's Rowan Joffe's output I was expecting some dire leftist agitprop something that appeals to me as much as pro American flag waving but no this is a plot that touches upon what is happening in Iraq where the road to hell is paved with very good intentions . Thankfully the audience aren't walloped over the head with the analogy but the more intelligent audience members will be able to notice the parallels while the horror and action fans will be very well catered for by the bloody set pieces . It should be pointed out that in atmosphere this tends to resemble James Herbert or George A Romero rather than Wyndham and Christopher but that's not a complaint

Mention should also go that this is a far better paced screenplay than Alex Garland's and has far less plot holes though there are one or two things that are totally brushed over like how on earth did Alice survive six months when Britain had turned to a murderous hell ? Oh she's a carrier of rage so maybe the infected didn't attack her because of this ? If that is the case then why does she get killed by someone she passes the infecion to ? And there's a scene towards the end in the underground which involves laughable coincidence , but there's nothing like the ridiculous lack of internal logic seen in the Boyle/Garland movie and best of all this sequel has a genuinely disturbing and pessimistic epilogue and that alone eclipses the original
56 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What an utter joke
nuttercook_998 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Where to start. The most ridiculous thing is the father character getting into a top security area (well you would think so) with his silly swipe card. Not one guard to be seen. I gave up on this junk then and there. He then kisses his wife, yuck. In reality she would have told him to sod off, he left her to die! Then he kills his wife, who is also a zombie. He must have had something against her eyes. Then he waltzes on out, and kills some heavily armed (you would imagine) soldiers. Surely, they would have blown his head off. Soldiers are trained to kill, end of story. The kids getting out of the security zone? Beggars belief, what a load of utter crap!!! This film is shite. Well it had good sound anyway, on my 5.1 digital sound system. The copter pilot only being able to pick them up from a park, at a certain time, a great distance away? The only reason for this is so there was plenty of space to fly in and do the giant lawnmower scene with his chopper. Yay!!! How this film is a 7.2 on the ratings scale defies belief. It shows you that the majority of earthlings are brain dead retards, who will accept any crap thrown at them. The Volvo out-maneuvering the attack helicopter? The U.S spends billions of dollars on attack helicopter research and development, yet a clapped out car can out-run and out-maneuver it. Why don't the military just put a rotor blade on the car roof, would save a bit of cash. Perhaps the crew could have fired arrows at the car, or maybe chased it on a horse. I want one of daddys miracle swipe cards, perhaps I could access other peoples bank accounts. This is what is wrong with the U.S military, their stuff don't work . Bombing didn't work, then the gas attack didn't work. What kind of gas was that anyway, zyklon B? Also, the inside of Wembley stadium is actually the Millennium stadium in Cardiff. What an atrocious lead up to another sequel (just what we need) Gee, lets take the kids to France. We no like those frogs. I think it was done on purpose. Why not fly them to Ireland, it is closer, and is also separated by a large body of water. What a bollocking, cluster, turgid, mindless, retarded piece of crap. Who is the screenwriter? Bring back the black list. Well, thats enough of me ranting. Thank you for reading this far. If you want to rent a good comedy, this is it.
39 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
zombie mombie
onepotato223 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Well, here we are again. The zombies are back after being quelled. It would have been terrific is the writers devised a clever way to revive the extinguished plague. Instead the absurd plot posits that two bratty idiot kids bring about the 2nd zombie outbreak; that their half-zombie mom is the vessel; and that their dad (her husband) who happens to be the guy running the safe zone is the first full-on zombie, with an alpha security clearance. It's nice that they could keep the entire plot in the family. It's like Dickens' lost zombie novel where everyone (again...) turns out to be related.

Rarely has the solution to a zombie invasion been this simple; target and kill this whole stupid family in the first few minutes of the movie; the stupid kids, the stupid father, even loving mom. That should do it. God how I came to hate this family. At one point the boy brat asks, "Do you think Mom is alive?" when he might better ask "Do you think our genetically-inherited stupidity caused all of this?"

Why have the people in zombie movies never heard of zombies? Why don't characters who freak out when a person appears and disappears over an edit, have the knowledge I do from ghost movies? Why do characters spend half a horror movie not acknowledging what they've seen? Why does the world of knowledge acquired from film not exist for characters in films? This idea would save audiences a lot of annoyance and crap movies.

I guess it's only fair that it doesn't start well because it also has no ending. It's nice to see London go up in flames though.
37 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best damn horror movie I've seen in a long time.
Catastrophe66611 May 2007
This I can honestly say is not an overstatement. The movie contained everything it needed to be become a classic horror movie. It had gore, emotion,a few jumps,and action all the way through. The movie starts off well with the jumps and the pulse pounding action. Then all calms for a second, only to pick up again and faster.

First off the gore was not as bad as some movies, which are overly gory for no reason. Don't get me wrong there was gore and lots of it, but for some reason it seemed to fit within the movie so well that your not really bothered by it. I'm no gore hound but I honestly couldn't turn away from the screen.

The emotion is excellent for a horror film. Normally you get one dimensional characters, that do things that would never make sense whether panic stricken or not. In this film the emotions were well placed and not cheesy at all. There may have been one scene that went a little overboard but it didn't ruin a thing.

The jumps were slight, and if your not a jumpy person you may not jump at all. But with all the action you'll still be on the edge of your seat, and the jumps to tell you truth are an added incentive.

Finally the action was full on pulse pounding. It was incredible for a horror film. Think of the beginning scene of the Dawn of the Dead remake, but put it in the whole film, with a few chill spots with well placed acting. Honestly this movie deserves a 10 and has restored my faith in horror movies. I will be getting it on DVD and any directors cuts that may come out as well.
383 out of 723 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A well paced, multi jump in your seat movie
michael-dovey-11 May 2007
Given that this time of year normally gives way to three-quels, kid friendly fayre or brainless blockbusters it's nice to have a proper 18 certificate horror film we can all go and see - without the worry of horror-lite 12A Hollywood horror, or 'lets try to gross out as much as possible' Hostel-a-like films.

Taking over directing duties from Danny Boyle is Juan Carlos Fresnadillo - and at just a shade over an hour and a half long - he has given us a great piece of well paced, atmospheric cinema, with more than enough moments in there to please fans of the original, as well as plenty in there for anyone new to movies' concept.

It's (funnily enough) 28 Weeks Later - and the infected have all died out, so it is now time to repopulate London. Cue more deserted streets, and a great opening which introduces us to the latest batch of protagonists to the rage virus - as well as lots of bored American soldiers - who whilst they don't actually add anything to the plot certainly keep the action moving.

Kudos to the producers for adding Robert Carlyle to the cast - who adds a certain vulnerability and air of menace to the role - think Begbie having a really really bad day - as well as a nicely rounded cast of supporting actors - including an impressive Imogen Poots, and Boyle alumni Rose Byrne.

Sure there are the usual horror staples to adhere to - stupid characters you just know are going to come to a sticky end, caricature soldiers to name but two - but ultimately you've got a well made film which is great to look at and, given a Spanish director surprisingly British horror movie that not only adds to the original but with the excellent ending certainly leaves the door open for Part 3.
178 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I was in a rage...
scottallendavis20 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
...after spending $8 to view this senseless mess of a movie. Perhaps the virus mutated to the writers, directors and actors, explaining the plot holes, sophomoric dialogue and clichéd and completely unoriginal camera work.

I don't mind the occasional plot hole in a horror movie. It's expected. What I do mind is a plot so nonsensical, so absurd, so implausible and so full of holes that I feel the film makers are purposefully insulting me.

Lucky for me I'm not all that intelligent, or the insult could have been terminal.

Read the other one star reviews of this movie for a comprehensive list of the many, many stupid reactions and decisions the characters make in this film. If I can save just one person the price of admission to this movie, then my job is done.
42 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Copy/Paste Fast Zombie
Blake Jarred14 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Movie franchises are an alternately compelling and trifling study. They can be attempts to contain an entire universe (the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter stuff), to establish disparate visions from one picture to the next (the Batman and Alien pictures), or to invest the dynamics of the imagined world in the characters instead of an external cosmology, and maintain a passing continuity through self-contained films (the Spider-Man series). But whatever the goal, generating money is paramount.

I liked "28 Days Later," but with it, Danny Boyle introduced something people hadn't seen before in zombie films, a kinetic movement in the zombies that superseded the George Romero shuffle-shuffle movements of the past three decades and translated into a fierce, fresh energy.

I had seen the "Dawn of the Dead" remake from a few years ago (where that newfound kinetic motion was immediately duplicated) before getting around to "28 Days Later," so it wasn't that aspect of the film that caught me, but the long final act in which the military compound is introduced. We saw it first in the guise of a safe haven, then as the sinister trap it was bound to be. Anybody could recognize the metaphors about our society's paranoia over the military establishment functioning in those scenes, and it must come across even more pointedly now than during the film's debut back in 2003. Which is one reason we now have this.

The other reason (besides money) is murky and troublesome. That first film was about motion, not about creating a contained universe. It wasn't about the characters or the acting, either, so now we have a new group of faces. The fabric is kept pretty much consistent with what we've already seen, right down to recycling of the original score, so even though we also get a new (hispanic) director, a reinvented vision is not realized as with the Batman and Alien movies. What does that leave us with? Why, amplifying the motion, of course.

In this case, you know to just forget about plot. It's simply the last forty minutes of the first film played out in a larger context with a heightening of the Military As Your Best Friend/Executioner metaphor, working towards a logical end result. What we're looking for here is the escalation of the threat conveyed in a cinematic way. The best this director musters is a sequence that stands out as a mini masterpiece, in which the anticipated reprisal of the outbreak reaches a delirious crescendo, infected and uninfected alike rush into the streets, soldiers in rooftop sniper positions eventually lose track of everything, and are ordered to fire indiscriminately on the crowd. This is so simple, the attention-deficit video game crowd it indicts could catch the symbolism. Of course, they'll ignore it. Occupying American force cuts down the local populace to the same effect as though it were a video game. Exceedingly simple. Yet well done. Yet the bottom line is that we can't do anything with it and really don't need it. Oh, and, uh, the helicopter flying low to chop up a field of zombies is a neat bit of grossness I hadn't seen before.

That's it. The rest is nothing to write home about. You may be mesmerized by that momentary increase in the already-established kinetics, as I was, but I'd say "28 Months Later" is bound to be very, very dull.

Blake's rating: 2 (out of 4)
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Leave it to Hollywood to mess up a great movie
mikrjon17 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
28 Days Later was an amazing film with great cinematography and acting. The rage within the infected in the first film was completely different in 28 weeks later as well as the ability to act. I knew from the beginning when checking up on this film before it released that since the U.S. was going to be producing, it was not going to be good. They should of stuck with the original producers and filmers.

The first scene was good, high suspense and good acting I thought, but it just dropped off a cliff right away. Later on in the film, Somehow the infected dad of the kids just somehow knew to hide from the napalm blast in the city and avoid each street that got charred and later filled with nerve gas. And I mean before he was infected he had to know that his wife had the infection so why the heck does he kiss her. The level of intelligence within this film is just awful. The kids were no better.. hmm lets just leave this protected city and go out to where all the infection could be, then the military doesn't take any swift action to stop them. I could keep going on and on but the bottom line is this movie was a horrible attempt to recreate something that was great in the infection-zombie movie types. I wish that Hollywood would keep out of other great movie makers business and let them do what they are good at.
38 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful
hitman_net12 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film was so awful it made me write this review to warn others.

As mentioned before in many reviews the film's plot has so many holes you can use it as a colander, but will not be left with much.

1) 6 Months after such a deadly virus and already the island is being populated 2) Poplulated by whom? The outbreak was so quick, who had time to leave? And who would want to come back? 3) How can the cottage that is boarded up for how ever long it had been, be so vulnerable so quickly. 4) How did the mother escape the 'zombies', how did she make it home, why wasn't her house boarded up? 5) How can 2 little brats sneak out from a maximum security camp without no one stopping them? 6) Why where the kids locked up with a guard, while the mother who has the virus left alone in a examining room? 7) How can the magnetic card of a maintenance guard open restricted military doors? And without no one spotting him enter! 8) Why couldn't the soldiers stop him on his way back out after being infected. 9) Why wasn't the civilian hold checked before evacuating the civilians in there with a 'zombie' waiting for them. 10) How did the 'zombies' survive the fire bombs and the gas bombs 11) Why did the 'zombies' keep turning up where the survivors were heading? 12) Why would you go down in to the tube where it's dark? 13) How did the father keep popping up in the middle of all the action, yet never killed? 14) After seeing your brother get bitten, why would you throw away the gun and run to him? 15) After the whole of the UK was infected, somehow the infection never left the island, but after 15000 people get reinfected under US military supervision it gets across the channel to France. 16) Who read this plot and thought it was a good one?

Nothing spoils a film more, than a plot with so many holes! Also in the first movie the 'zombies' kept to the dark and didn't come out in the day. In the second movie this weakness has been thrown out as they seem quite partial to the day light.

By the end of the film we were hoping the survivors would all die for being so stupid.
25 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Nutshell Review: 28 Weeks Later
DICK STEEL10 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes over from Englishman Danny Boyle in the followup movie to the latter's excellent 28 Days Later, and has come up with something worthy. Should a third movie be made and doesn't screw up the good work already done, it should make a pretty neat trilogy. I enjoy the legendary George A Romero's zombies in his movies, though I have to confess I prefer those in the 28-later series, as their constant running pace provides a shot of adrenaline when our helpless victims try in futile to escape, and somehow in that reckless speed, make them truly terrifying (ok, cos I can't run, and if caught in that kind of situation, I'll be dead meat).

But the movie doesn't hit the ground running. In fact, it plays like the memorable soundtrack composed by John Murphy who also did the predecessor movie, and allows for the calm to ring through, before the madness of a storm begins. The horrific opening scene would have to be one of the best in the movie, before we're fast forwarded to 28 weeks later, where Robert Carlyle's Don awaits his children Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) and Tammy (Imoen Poots, a dead ringer for Cate Blanchett!). We revisit the quiet streets of London again, like in 28 Days Later, with recognizable landmarks void of people, and the city having been ravaged, now undergoes repopulation by those who managed to leave the initial onslaught of the Rage virus.

Before you scream "Resident Evil!" because of the similarities, be rest assured that this movie beats those in the Milla Juvovich vehicle anytime. What I thought if I read too deep into it, is the showcase of the US military being yet the armed forces occupying a land that is not theirs, imposing a safe, and highly secured "green zone" for the incoming residents to reside in, while everything outside that zone is deemed the wild west, reeked with rotting bodies and the potential of a deadly virus rearing its ugly head, ready to spark a pandemic. Probably cuts a little close to the real world, but what the heck, leave those thoughts aside and enjoy the movie.

It's no surprise too that while it's nice to see a crisis plan kick in when things go awry, there are enough moments which make you think twice about collateral damage in the name of greater good, and how one thing leads to another, and finally to extermination. And self- sacrifice is often a common element in zombie movies, and I thought this was handled extremely well, especially in the Carlyle's character. It's one thing to pay lip service, and another when there's a call to action.

I've said it before, the running zombies are a sight to behold. They're stealthy and waste no time, with the tenacity of mad rabid dogs pouncing on you with their thick bloody drool. And what makes it horrific is if you were to put yourself running away from these folks, you'll wonder exactly how long you can outlast them before they finally get to you, from all directions. Making it more difficult this time round, is the escape from the weapons of mass destruction (sorry, couldn't resist that one) that the US forces unleash, and with the snazzy CG effects, these scenes become a sight to behold, without going over the top with the effects.

I like many scenes in the movie, which I will not describe lest to spoil them for you. But indeed, there is great potential towards developing a cult following. For those in need of geography lessons, yes, those are the white cliffs of Dover. If there's a gripe, it'll again be the local distributor's decision to release this movie censored for its gory scenes. I noted at least 2 jarring cuts during scenes of blood lust. But let not those minor irritations get to your enjoyment.
64 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed